Re: DB2 UDB or Oracle (who has better support)

From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 12:32:50 -0800
Message-ID: <1109881780.742577@yasure>

Mark A wrote:

> "DA Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:1109818455.147931_at_yasure...
> 

>>This is not true. There are very substantial differences between the
>>products in terms of architecture, concepts, and capabilities. In one
>>sense they can all be used to create a back-end that "will work." But
>>the capabilities built-in versus those one has to code themselves or
>>purchase from a third-party vendor vary dramatically.
>>

>
> Is that relevent for using SAP?

No it is relevant to the comment that the back-end databases are the essentially the same. I thought your reading comprehension better. ;-)

>>Then don't but what features of the database do you care about? What
>>matters to you? How about the fact that DB2 has a different code base
>>for different operating systems. Change from UNIX to Windows and you
>>might as well be changing to Sybase.
>>
>>Daniel A. Morgan

> 
> 
> That is not accurate. DB2 for Linux, UNIX, and Windows has the code base
> except for Operating System issues. They share all the same manuals.

If that is true, which I don't believe but don't have time to validate I stand corrected. Replace Windows with Mac OS/X. Oh that's right DB2 doesn't support it. Ok ... OS/400.

> DB2 for AS/400, DB2 for Z/OS (mainframe), and DB2 for VM all have different
> code bases and all different from DB2 for Linux, UNIX, and Windows. But at
> the SQL level, they are pretty close.

Pretty close doesn't cut it when a table name or column name doesn't fit into the data dictionary. They are different ... they are ... just accept it.

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

Received on Thu Mar 03 2005 - 14:32:50 CST